Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Why is everyone freaking out? (Score 1) 726

by hallux.sinister (#35123658) Attached to: New Mexico Bill To Protect Anti-Science Education
Um... all this new rule would seem to be saying is that teachers won't be able to be prosecuted for speaking out against a theory. I'm totally NOT in favor of someone trying to pump kids' heads full of the false-cause and illicit appeal to authority fallacy-based arguments so common to science's skeptics, but isn't this basically reinforcing the first amendment as it applies to educators? If the science is truly sound, it should be able to weather ANY attack from ANYONE, and oh by the way, isn't that the heart and soul (if you'll pardon the expression) of science, people questioning and challenging things? Or are teachers not allowed to deviate from whatever the book they're using to teach says at all... in which case, why do we need teachers at all? (A rhetorical question, before you all jump me...) Why not just use teachers to teach kids to read, and then hand them books? Teachers ARE needed, and they need to have the latitude to explain things and answer kids' questions. That's their job. This new rule sounds like it's just going to protect them from the consequences of doing THEIR JOBS. Wish Iowa had extended its judiciary the same courtesy, before it let the voters oust a group of them for DOING NOTHING MORE, OR LESS, THAN THEIR JOBS. Bravo NM. I may not agree with what your teachers are going to say, but I'm glad you're giving them room to breathe, and not gagging them and hanging a sword a-la Damocles over their heads.

Comment: Misro$oft (Score 1) 596

by hallux.sinister (#35104274) Attached to: Microsoft Vehemently Denies Google's "Bing Sting"
When has M$ ***EVER*** admitted to doing anything wrong? They could have been (metaphorically) standing over a dead body, weapon in hand, covered in blood, had 50 credible witnesses, a half-dozen video cameras, and a high-speed holographic image recorder ALL trained on them, after screaming "I, Misro$oft, am going to kill you, [victim's name] with this [weapon] right now!" and when someone said "OMG, you KILLED him!" they'd say, "Nope. Wasn't us. That was someone else."

Comment: Burning with... sun? (Score 1) 317

by hallux.sinister (#35104164) Attached to: 19-Year-Old Makes Homemade Solar Death Ray
You can if you know the enemy must pass through a specific area, like when they sail into a harbor. Then you just aim at where they have to pass through... I don't care what Adam & Jamie said, the sun's putting out lotsa power, and it can be focused. The question is whether they, in ancient times, had smooth enough, clear (efficient) enough mirrors, or enough of them to overcome the lack of efficiency. If you had reflectors that only operated at 50% efficiency, on a bright sunny day, and you could aim them reliably at a point, and had say, a square mile of them, you could melt ROCK with it, I would think. I don't know the amount of power the sun puts out on the Earth in Greece, or what time of year... but I'm sure it could be figured out by trial and error, if you had to. OTOH... as soon as word got out, the enemy would simply attack only on cloudy days, or at night. HOWEVER, what if they could re-aim them at a big bon-fire? Maybe history has it wrong, and the point of the mirrors was to BLIND, not burn. In such a case, even a big bonfire could work. If the sailors on the enemy boats were unable to see, they could then blast the boats with flaming pitch from catapults, or whatever, or just hose them down with something flammable using high-pressure monitors, or maybe just flood the area through which they had to sail with oil, and set THAT on fire with the sun. Maybe they did that. OTO, OH, maybe they didn't use the sun at all. What if they used a bonfire, and the mirrors were for focusing not visible light, (although they doubtless used that for aiming) but instead was for directing IR? They didn't have to know what IR was to know fire was HOT!!!

Comment: Not cost effective (Score 1) 782

by hallux.sinister (#34384758) Attached to: US Army Unveils 'Revolutionary' $35,000 Rifle
For that kind of money, plus what we spend on each soldier's armor, training, etc., I think we are approaching a point where it will be less costly, in money and American soldiers' lives, to simply develop and field battle-droids. Also, remember the dark side: any technology that is developed and fielded by our military is in the hands of our government, and may be used at some point by them to oppress the people. Think it can't happen?

Nothing is more admirable than the fortitude with which millionaires tolerate the disadvantages of their wealth. -- Nero Wolfe

Working...